Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: brewcrew87 Date: May 4, 2009 9:10am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: mp3 vs flac/shn

is there truley a noticable difference. I have done numerous tests by decoding flac files to 320 or 256 or even 192 mp3 and i cant tell which is mp3 and which is flac. this dead tour is filling up my harddrive fast, so i need to do something

opinions on this please- can you tell the difference

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: sambonk2 Date: May 4, 2009 9:18am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

Big Difference from a a 192MP3 to A shn or flac or even Wave.
192 is very good quality.SHN/FLAc/Wave are much bigger files and sound much better.If you like the sound...go for it.I would suggest not going Below 192....128/96/64...are very "compressed sounding

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: skuzzlebutt Date: May 4, 2009 1:42pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

If you have some really high end equipment you might be able to tell, but speaking for an average set of ears listening to average speakers in average conditions, I haven't noticed much if any difference. Like many here, I prefer the higher bitrate MP3s primarily because of storage reasons.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Scrim Date: May 4, 2009 11:58am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

Pretty soon we will have 1TB mini-stick flash drives. The space issue will be a moot point, and you will wish all your music was in "full resolution" lossless files. Hang in there, memory is getting cheaper!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: clashcity Date: May 4, 2009 4:51pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

Indeed. Even now 1.5 TB SATA drive can be had for $125.00. Combine a few of those with a RAID card and you've got yourself inexpensive and redundant storage.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: May 4, 2009 12:23pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

Have said it many times before: for me it is always the overall show quality that counts.

EG, if I have a bunch of commercial releases, or the hotest show (9-19-70), converting to MP3 on the ipod, with great speakers/headphones, sounds about the same as the WAVs...and, 9-19 sounds as good in either format on the stereo...

But, I acknowledge that they are different, and someone might detect the difference, and my anal retentive nature forces me to have lossless...

And it is getting easier and easier...I now generally put three loseless versions on the little ipod and cycle them off after I have "reviewed" them by listening for a week or two...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jglynn1.2 Date: May 4, 2009 12:41pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

hmm - 131 shows for 1968 (according to setlists.net)

obviously not all 131 available

let's say 87

87/3 = 29

If you cycle about every 12.5 days you should be good for one year - then repeat

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: May 4, 2009 3:08pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

Outstanding analysis my friend! You warrant an "Anal Retentive's Credenza" which comes with a soothing prep H pad! Whoa! Top of the line, I must point out...well, not that I would know anything about such topical subjects (pun "end" tended? Ouuueeewww).

Yep, space is just not such an issue if you restrict yourself. Just tighten that...that...oh, fugetaboutit.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: clashcity Date: May 4, 2009 11:39am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

You could save some serious space if you wiped the 2009 Dead Tour stuff from the drive - barely any of it worth listening to let alone keeping on a hard drive for any length of time.

My curmudgeonly opinions aside - I could never tell much difference between high bit rate MP3's vs FLAC/SHN/WAV - but as with others it is likely due to some form of hearing loss or damage.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: fireeagle Date: May 4, 2009 12:12pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: WAV

i did exactly the opposite. wiped out a lot of old stuff (saved on discs) to make space for the dead tour. no regrets. the ride is slow, but mighty enjoyable

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: august_wst Date: May 4, 2009 10:03am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

Absolutely. It is the same difference as seeing a high quality photo in something like National Geographic and a picture in a daily newspaper. It all boils down to resolution.

But... if you are like me and have done enough damage to your hearing, the real question becomes "Do I personally need to worry about it for my own use, if I can't tell?"

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: tank_tuba Date: May 5, 2009 6:34am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

Hey, the biggest difference I've noticed is when you burn your files to disc. If you're driving in your car with the windows down, it seems to me that the mp3 disc has a limited amount of volume. Whereas, the shn/flac disc has better fidelity in this situation.

Listening on 1 inch computer speakers or earbuds, I can't tell any difference.

Peace.
aj

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: May 5, 2009 8:22am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

What?

I can't hear you guys - can you type louder?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: tank_tuba Date: May 5, 2009 11:18am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

IS THIS BETTER?

MY TYPEWRITER GOES TO 11 MATE.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: May 5, 2009 11:30am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

jesus man, Dust-E's brain hurts - cant you keep it down a bit??? the dude's in a bit of pain, have a heart!!


;)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: tank_tuba Date: May 5, 2009 2:47pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

But... but... but... mine goes to 11 man.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: May 5, 2009 8:59am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

lol :)

(ok - that was bad)


how you doin MJ? havent seen you here much - but then again I havent been here much either ;)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: May 5, 2009 9:15am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

Hello dire -

Hope things have been well for you. Mrs. Mando and I have been extremely busy trying to get a Transition Town and Community Supported Agriculture project going. Neither of us have any confidence that the current administration is going to succeed at fixing the economy - not when all they are doing is continuing with the failed tactics and approaches every administration back to Nixon has tried. Factor in Peak Oil and the environmental issues and everything is compounded to the bad.

I think the shit is going to hit the fan big time in the next 3-4 years and unless we start working on sustainable community building now we are fucked.

Sorry for the bummer post, but that's what's been eating up our time. The genesis of a lot of our efforts were triggered after watching "The Crash Course" over on chrismartenson.com. I know we aren't supposed to put links to non Dead related sites in here but check it out when you get a chance.

Whew!!!

"Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the show?"

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jglynn1.2 Date: May 5, 2009 7:24am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

Now that is important information - I love driving with the windows down!!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: tank_tuba Date: May 5, 2009 10:14am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

I like to do important field tests and report back with my findings.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: skuzzlebutt Date: May 5, 2009 6:19am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn...let's not get carried away

With all this talk about "purity", artistic integrity and commitment to sound quality, let's not forget that the Grateful Dead themselves have been more than happy to profit from the sale of downloadable MP3s of their music (inc 128k in some cases). If it's not a big deal to the people who created this music in the first place- and clearly it is not - then I really don't see what the issue is.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: falconcry77 Date: May 5, 2009 6:34am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn...let's not get carried away

good point. however, just because it's ok with rhino doesn't mean it's ok with each individual member of the band, espec jerry. And even if it is ok with each member of the band, they don't necesarilly know what's best for the preservation of their music.

you're right though, it's not a big deal. the important thing is whether or not people get to hear the music. we hear it, so let us rejoice and be glad in it!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elkdog Date: May 4, 2009 9:58am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

I like vbr mp3's for maximizing the quality/file size ratio, but your ears are the real test. As long as you're not trading them, it's not really an issue. I don't keep flac's around, because I don't have the storage space, and because I want to have a lot of music on my iPod. My test is always the cymbals- if they sound ok, the rest is gravy.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: falconcry77 Date: May 4, 2009 4:11pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

i am a lossless only kinda guy. once you degrade to mp3 you can never get the lost info back. it's gone for good. i agree with an earlier post that storage will be moot soon- very soon. storage capabillities will be so huge and so cheap that there will be no more mp3s. there wont be a need for them. there wont be flac or shn either for the same reason. everyone will have wavs and only wavs and their drives will still be impossible to fill. until then, you have options- i got a 1tb western digital internal for 100 bucks on newegg, and a 1tb external for 100 bucks to back it up. when they fill up i'll get a 2tb internal and use the 2 1tb drives to back that up.

the point is this: there is a HUGE difference between 99.9 and 100 percent. flac is 100. shn is 100. case closed. i am an artist, and i wouldn't want my paintings to be shown at 99.9 percent of there original aesthetic. 100 all the way!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: JC Edwards Date: May 4, 2009 5:13pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

I have to put in my two bits here as well. I've been a musician more than 30 years, I have perfect pitch and my hearing has never been better regardless of having played with the volume on TEN for years.
I too cannot tell the difference between mp3 and lossless or flac or whatever you want to call it other than the fact that some of these flac recordings sound more compressed......like they're underwater!

Not impressive.

Also, if you want clean playback and zero spacing between the songs I would recommend the COWON Media Center - jetAudio. It's way more advanced than Windows Media Player and much better than that lousy Win-Amp program!

I use COWON for ripping and burning and COWON with my Realtek HD Audio Manager for playback and am quite pleased with the job it does.

Now; let's talk the social aspects of playing "Alligator" on a first date............

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Styrofoam Cueball Date: May 4, 2009 7:55pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

I echo JC's sentiments. The only time I can tell a file has been compressed too far is with ".wma" files (like Sugarmegs uses, alas.)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: JC Edwards Date: May 4, 2009 8:07pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

Thank you Q. :-)

Now.....about the new Aston Martin with ejector seat.......

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Styrofoam Cueball Date: May 4, 2009 9:01pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

I'd equip you with one for this mission, "J," but since you returned the last one in less than Pristine Order, you'll have to make do with a "TaTa" this time out... :)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: JC Edwards Date: May 5, 2009 1:17am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

A "TaTa" Q?......ohhhhh, well if you mean Jennifer Love-Hewitt I could give the little darlin' a crash course in ejector seat's.....heard she'd rather make a fine floatation device in the event of a water landing! :-D

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Styrofoam Cueball Date: May 5, 2009 8:38am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

Dream on, "J"... the "TaTa" is the new Indian-made car that runs on air puffs. I was trying to think of the opposite of the glamorous Austin. And J-Love is MINE. lol

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: JC Edwards Date: May 5, 2009 9:29am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

LOL Rather reminds me of that old beer commercial (that ironically echoed the same argument we had when we were a tad younger)......

"Ginger or Mary Ann?.......Mary Ann!!"

"Mary Ann or Jeannie?.........JEANNIE!!!!!!" :-D :-D

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: falconcry77 Date: May 4, 2009 5:45pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

if a flac recording you heard sounded compressed it's because of the original recording, not the conversion method. period.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: May 4, 2009 6:18pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

Hey now, I am a complete moron when it comes to this shit, but my understanding from the likes of NC and huntr and strat and tiger was that WAV was an older (?) approach, and that it was to be replaced by FLAC or some other lossless format. SHN and MP3 would be dinosaurs too...

Do I have it wrong? I recall saying something lame like "WTF?!? I just learned how to create WAVs from my SHNs and FLACs, using Trader's Little Helper, and now you're telling me they are going away too???" but again, I may have been confused...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: falconcry77 Date: May 5, 2009 5:55am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

wavs are what record comopanies put on cds. because they are large files we came up with ways to compress them. compressing to mp3 makes them much smaller, but you lose info. purists then came up with shn, a way to make them smaller whilst preserving 100% of the info. a few years later we came up with flac, a way to make them even smaller than shns still without losing any info. my opinion is that at the rate bulk storage is going, finding ways to make smaller the original record company's files will no longer be advantageous in a few years.(3-5?) if the record comopany puts out a cd in wav, we'll store the wavs. if they offer a download online in flac, we'll store the flacs. basically the days of conversion will be over, as there will be no need to make them smaller (as long as our players can play whatever files they offer). i welcome this day, as the evil mp3 will be the first to go. whatever file the major record companies decide will be the industry standard is what we will store.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jglynn1.2 Date: May 5, 2009 7:21am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

Darn, I was hoping to get more insight on the "Alligator on a First Date"

Obviously it should be a '68 Alligator - but which one precisely?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: sambonk2 Date: May 5, 2009 6:53am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

wav and flac are the highest in Quality.....Biggist files as well...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: smgarcia Date: May 4, 2009 1:02pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

There is little difference. There have been studies (anecdotal) where they asked audiophiles, usually musicians or music producers, to listen to different music file types including CD, mp3, shn, etc. with high quality headphones. And there are never consistent findings among these audiophiles. I think yone really needs high-quality speakers to hear the differences.

There might be a difference at <128 kbps, I remember it being fairly consistent.

I convert my flac's into mp3s at about 160 vbr. I'm happy with that. I also use iTunes/iPod to manage/listen to my music and that platform doesn't support flac. I spend a lot of time editing the meta-data of the music files, adding comments, changing file names. All of that can basically be done with other programs but I'm used to iTunes and I generally like their organizational schema and search functions.

I don't worry about it one bit. Although I think someone wrote disk space is cheap...which it certainly is. You can get 1 TB for about $200, maybe less. But still that will only hold about 1000 loseless GD concerts. They played 2500, and I'm sure there is other music you'll want to listen to too!

I have no regrets...I could probably bump up my compression to 256 vbr but I myself could not tell the difference between 256 and 160 when I played it over my $100 speakers and headphones.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: May 4, 2009 3:06pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

SMG--as a scientist, I tend to believe this (your point). The likes of Tiger and Strat, and huntr and a few others, anecdotally indicate they can tell...but, I tend to think that in a blind taste (?) test it would be difficult...

But, there is the overall issue of trading, etc.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: sambonk2 Date: May 4, 2009 1:26pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

anything below 192....there is a Huge difference....more compression which gives a "wooshy" sound....If you have the space....Shn/Flac or the prefered Wav file is the way to go

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Earl B. Powell Date: May 4, 2009 1:49pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: mp3 vs flac/shn

...Just finished reading "Grateful Dead Gear" by Blair Jackson,and for the band it was always about improving their sound quality. I don't necessarily believe that there was a linear ascent into a high fidelity concert experience, to much had to do with the "room ambiance." Nevertheless, their dedication to sound was rarely matched, and it's probably an honorable concept to maintain the highest possible listening quality for our own purposes.